The document discusses the challenges and evolution of global governance, emphasizing the need for reform in existing institutions to address contemporary global issues. It highlights the tension between national sovereignty and international responsibilities, driven by globalization and technological advancements. Furthermore, it critiques the current democratic legitimacy of global governance structures and suggests that effective solutions require cooperation among nations to navigate complex international relations.

1. Get Homework Done
Homeworkping.com
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Online Tutoring
https://www.homeworkping.com/
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
Fernando Miguel Angel Santamaría Pérez
A01210518
Institutions and International Organizations
CCM.RI2014
Keeping Global Governance
The beginning of the 21’st century was extremely turbulent, but stated how
fragile was the world constituted through the past century. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks, 2007 financial crisis, global warming and wealth crisis, just to mention
some, redefined finances, economy and global governance. This last one was

2. questioned since mid-90, when the globalization feels strongest than ever, but
with the appearance of new actors the idea of stability started to seem as an
illusion. The current institutions that represents the so called global governance
are obsoletes and must be reformed to influence further than economics and
finances to face the new global challenges. In the next pages the weaknesses,
strengths and progress of global governance (G.G.) will be analyzed.
G.G. is not the same than international government or “world order” (that
sounds as a conspiracy cliché) and suggests that should respond to a sort of
“executive entity”, but its compound by the “processes and institutions, both
formal and informal, that guide and restrain the collective activities of a group”
(Rasche, A., 2012, p. 101) giving coherence and parameters of how the
international actors could interact between them with mutual agreements
looking for an effective functionality. There’s no such thing as a manual of how
G.G. exercise its influence because the many institutions that constitute it. As it
is based in multiple actors that influence almost every sector, it works as a
linking platform connecting local, national and international addressing
problems and solutions in function that they share goals more than legal
authority (Rasche, A., 2012, p. 102) Through this basic idea they create a new
action framework where three spheres are relevant for the correct functioning of
this system: political domain, economic domain and civil society domain, and
works in the three linking levels mentioned before1 (Rasche, A., 2012, p. 103)
In order to understand G.G., globalization needs to be defined; the
concept tries to be inclusive, but it’s merely understood just in economic terms.
So the ideal of create a global network of cooperation in every way is a
misconception. Nevertheless, it is the potentialapertures to have any kind of
transactions (cultural, economic or political) with any actor implied on the
international scene what will be comprehend as “global” (Maytnz, R. 2002 p. 1).
1Andreas Rasche,professor of Business in Society atCopenhagen Business School and co-author of the
article“Institutionalizingglobal governance:the roleof the United Nations Compact”, establish three
interpretations for this model: a multiactor perspective, a multilevel perspective and a network
perspective. The firstone refers to observe the elements as individualsbutcoexistingon the frame and
collaboratingon the generation of policies;the second one increases the interconnection not only
between the actor but also on their different levels;the lastone complement the other two with the
perspective of the integration vertically and horizontally in order to achieveconsensus and solutionsto
global governance.

3. The first attempt to being global, in an institutional level was after World War I
with the foundation of “The League of Nations”, and after with the creation of
United Nations (UN) the basisof an international structure began to rise. But all
the benefits of being global also carry a lot of new conflicts.
The globalization changed the dynamics of every kind of relation
between countries until the point that started to have a responsibility on the
others. Because of it, the space of sovereignty of the State began to disappear,
and even started to be opposite to the mentioned responsibility2. “The states
are most responsible of the world order. To the contractual responsibility with
their citizens need to be added one that compromise them with the exterior, the
environment, the peace and development” (Innerarity, D., 2012 p. 18) the
structure of the traditional institution that takes care about the different areas of
development must be projected to function internationally, but this change
brings up two problems: a. the non-politic nature of the globalization bring up a
power empty and b. that the new international institutions could be considered
non democratic.
If the interaction is getting cooperative it is absurd think that the
governance model followed by the states will not suffer any change; national
governance had been state-centered and was based on the concept of
sovereignty. The idea of give up some authority in order to get benefits it wasn’t
very pleasant, but when problems as poverty, hunger, terrorism, war,
immigration and lack of resources started to rise dramatically since the
governments closed their distances, they noticed about that can’t be solved
unilaterally because the missing of authority (Rasche, A., 2012, p. 102)
consequence of expand virtually their frontiers. The disappearance of the power
of the aisled state as has been known until now, and be subordinated to
common interests reduces the influence of the governments in their countries.
The concept of democracy loses terrain versus legitimacy, thanks to the
2 On her article“The national states and global governance”,the German sociologistand director
emeritus of the Max Planck Institutefor the Study of Societies,Renate Maytnz mention that the national
economies used their access to the markets of other countries adheringto international i nstitutionsan
treaties. These helps to answer the pressureof being immerse in a most globalized world and also
supposea lotof benefits to their respective citizens but exposes their finances to bigger crisis.The
benefits don’t seem to compensate the political,economic and social restrictionsthatnow have to
followbecausethey belong to a more complex structure.

4. reconfiguration beyond the state, and besides remarks the differences between
political spaces and social spaces (Innerarity, 2012 p.16) empowers other
actors not legitimized by popular election, and should be considered
undemocratic generating disputes inside and outside dissolving power in little
cells.
What put the world governments in this kind of predicaments? Well, the
development of new technologies for telecommunications creates a new
perspective of how the individuals could interact and send and retrieve
information. This, subsequently, changes the ways we commerce and how the
countries should produce creating the adequate scenarios to bring up the
political globalization. The negative effects of the different kinds of globalization
have been made necessary the creation of structures that should stop the
conflicts that created them in first place (Maytnz, R. 2002, p. 2).
Five types of globalization could be considered as motors of the global
interaction and involves the problems that need to be challenged in this era; to
be considered: the global expansion of transport and telecommunication that is
the base of the next four; the economic globalization because the
transnationals; the ecological globalization that considers all the negatives
externalities of the global warming; the fourth it’s the increasing of the violence
and the fifth it’s the global civil society3. Solutions will be bringing as long as the
affected countries starts to solve the problem for themselves. The application of
policies that should concern the other member countries will push up the efforts
of the region. Just think a moment about European Union or all those regional
commercial treaties and organizations that, in order to expand its members,
help other nations to reach and keep a level of development.The sovereignty of
the states is affected when they started to consider these aspects on their
policies because the international competitiveness pressures them to notice
about other countries growing capital (Maytnz, R, 2002, p. 3). The main conflicts
are that the social security of the population is compromised and the personal
interest of certain characters that will try to take advantage of this structures.
3Understandingthe concept of “global civil society”international non-governmental societies that
represents certain sectors as enterprises tryingto reach goals thatare part of the public interest.

5. So, the problems seem to be complicated and that crushes some level of
independence. It’s the global governance necessary? The answer is a
convincing yes because it gives better tools to the countries to get into the
international scenario. In most of the international or intergovernmental
institutions the way of proceed is through negotiation instead of being an
authority. “The international regimes constitute, clearly and openly, solutions
reached through negotiations […] trying to get them from the experts […] with a
high technical level” (Maytnz, R, 2002 p. 4) this is actually the core of global
governance.
The paradox of restrictions is the most polemical characteristic. The
collective decisions that can be taken inside will be guided by organisms as UN,
IMF, WB or WTO4. In these cases, the states will try to push the negotiations in
order to flip the restrictive ones into protector and look for their own interests
(Maytnz, R., 2002, p. 5) On the other hand, as we consider that the G.G.
structure comes from the state, this game of equilibrium differs a lot from region
to region. It was explained before the case of the European Union, but what
about Africa, for example? Most of these countries are ruled by dictators, the
currency is overrated and their markets are closed to the exterior (Maytnz, R.,
2002, p. 6) as was established a couple of paragraphs ago, the global
governance is ruled by finances and technology development, if the area has a
serious lack of stability and ·a unified “democracy”. Even is just a matter of
resources what has put some of these countries on the board.
Let’s go deeper about its democratization. The basic believe about is the
base that everybody supposes for governance as an inclusive structure. “What
is about it is to understand the equilibrium between national and international as
defy to extend democracy to new processes” (Innerarity, D., 2012, p. 16).but the
interactions among countries is most of the times an economic depoliticized
actions and democracy couldn’t not exist further national state because the
process of legitimization of the global governance. It doesn’t arise from a
popular election so it’s more prone to be victim of doubts.
4United Nations,International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization respectively.

6. Invariably the topic of justice needs to be touched. Does justice exist in a
more complex international interaction? The same way as democracy, the
justice that we know is based on the limits of the state. “Talk about international
justice is talk about interdependencies that establish communities beyond legal
framework” (Innerarity, D, 2012, p. 21) there’s no more standardized procedure
because don’t exist a thing as an international constitution, but it’s based on the
recognition of responsibility of the other based on cause and effect (e.g. the
violation of human rights In some region will cause the immediate action) and
will be guided by the international institutional framework to cooperative
solutions.
As has been seen, the organization of international institutions has a
more complex structure than could be appear. The strengths and weaknesses
of them get lost because each one, in different levels, could be both at the same
time. The main problems detected were: legitimization of the organisms,
democratization of them and the foundations of the authority. The reform, not
only structural but conceptual, will change the ancient parameters of the
organisms if we realized that most of them were founded almost eighty years
ago, when the needs where merely financial and economical (or they believe
that).
If the Global Governance is supposed to be the main support of the
foreign affairs, it must help to solve the external problems that affect countries
derivate from international negotiations that only want to hold some personal
and political interests from other nations. Even when the national state keeps
being the center of the political structure, the constitution of a new type, well
understood and structured, is fundamental. The regionalization of the world
demands partnership and dialogue. If a country decides to keep going through
its own will encounter a heavy wall that will be fighting against the asymmetries
of power in favor of a true global multilevel policy (Maytnz, R., 2002, p. 7).
Conceptualize that is not an obligation of diminish but to change the order of the
world to face the new challenges.

7. References
 Innerarity, D. (2012). La gobernanza global, de la soberanía a la
responsabilidad. (Spanish). Revista CIDOB D'afers Internacionals, (100),
11-23. Retrieved
from:http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=aa4af461-2733-
4488-a7fe-
2f5133e47322%40sessionmgr113&hid=127&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3
QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=86389606. Accessed May 7, 2013.
 Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D. (2012). Institutionalizing global governance: the
role of the United Nations Global Compact. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 21(1), 100-114. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2011.01642.x
Retrieved from:

8. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&sid=aa4af461-2733-4488-
a7fe-
2f5133e47322%40sessionmgr113&hid=127&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3
QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=69605629 Accessed May 7, 2013.
 Maytnz, R. (2002) Los estados nacionales y la gobernanza global.
Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, (24), 1-8. Retrieved from:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/clad/clad0043401
.pdf Accessed May 7, 2013.